Electronic Supplementary Material (ESI) for Energy & Environmental Science.

This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2017

Supplementary Information
Can CO2 enhanced oil recovery catalyze gigatonne carbon
capture and storage deployment?
Clea Kolster,a,b,c , Mohammad S. Masnadi,d Sam Krevor,e
Niall Mac Dowellb,c and Adam R. Brandt∗d

S1 MIICE MATLAB code

MIICE MATLAB script is attached.

S2 Model scoping and assumptions

S1 Model envelope

Crude oil
Power Plant refining &
consumption

Flue gas Crude oil

CO2-EOR Field
CO2 Capture Plant CO2 Transport Development &
Operation

Figure S1: Conceptual representation of the CCS + CO2 -EOR model envelope (dotted line box)
without considering physical flow streams

∗
Corresponding Author E-mail: abrandt@stanford.edu
a
Grantham Institute for Climate Change and the Environment, Imperial College London, SW7 2AZ, UK
b Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London, SW7 1NA, UK
c Centre for Process Systems Engineering, Imperial College London, SW7 2AZ, UK
d Department of Energy Resources Engineering, School of Earth, Energy & Environmental Sciences, Stanford

University, CA, 94305, USA

e Department of Earth Science and Engineering, Imperial College London, SW7 2AZ, UK

1
S2 CCS and CO2 enhanced oil recovery field development and cost mod-
eling
S2.1 CO2 capture cost in literature and model-based assumptions

Table S1: Real-time and literature-based capital cost values of amine-based CO2 post-combustion
capture plants coupled with supercritical pulverized coal fired plants adjusted to 1 MtCO2 captured
per year

Reference Source Capital Cost Value (2016 Information & Assumptions

US$/MtCO2 captured)
Boundary Dam CCS [S1]
Petra Nova Parish CCS [S2–S5]
Rubin et al. Study [S6]
Adjusted SRCCS study [S6]
Worley Parsons Report [S8]
$1.5 billion Successfully deployed project,
over-budget
$714 million Successfully deployed project,
on-budget
$326 million Literature based study for new
build power plants with CCS
$270 million Literature based study
conducted in 2005 [S7] for a new
build power plant + CCS
$209 million Literature based study for a
new build power plant + CCS

Table S2: Operating costs for CO2 capture as reported by Worley Parsons and adjusted to a
MtCO2 basis - all cost values adjusted to 2016 US$.

Parameter Worley Parsons Report Adjusted Calculations for this

Study
Type of power plant considered Pulverized coal firing idem
Type of capture technology Post-combustion amine idem
scrubbing
Net Power Output 546 MW approx. 110 MW
Capture rate 90% 90%
CO2 Captured 4.98 Mt/year 1 Mt/year
Power associated with capture 87 MW 17.5 MW
plant
Cost of electricity consumed $30.25 million/year $6.07 million/year
Variable O&M $4.53 million/MWh $0.69 million/year
Fixed O&M $11.41 million $2.29 million

2
S2.2 CO2 transport costs

Table S3: Capital and operating costs for transport pipelines from source to sink required for
projects of 1- 4MtCO2 /year capture rates (M$ = $ million)

Cost type Function of 1MtCO2 /year 2 - 3MtCO2 /year >3MtCO2 /year

Pipeline Capital Costs
Materials Diameter (D) & 7.223 M$ 11.115 M$ 15.377 M$
Length (L)
Labor D&L 28.209 M$ 32.976 M$ 36.672 M$
Miscellaneous D& L 7.825 M$ 11.287 M$ 13.815 M$
Right of Way D& L 2.976 M$ 3.172 M$ 3.1547 M$
CO2 surge tank Fixed 1.332 M$ idem idem
Pipeline control Fixed 0.120 M$ idem idem
system
Total Capital Costs 47.686 M$ 60.003 M$ 75.567 M$
Pipeline Operating Costs
Operating & L 0.561 M$ idem idem
Maintenance
Total Operating 0.561 M$/year idem idem
Costs

S2.3 EOR field model development and assumptions

Equation S1 is used to calculate the minimum miscibility pressure (MMP) required for CO2 to
be miscible with oil at injection. This is based on characteristic assumptions presented in Table
S4.

M M P = 15.988 × T (0.744206 + 0.0011038 × M W C5) (S1)

with
M M P : minimum miscibility pressure (psi)
T : reservoir temperature (Farenheit)
M W C5: molecular weight of pentanes & heavier fractions of oil

Table S4: Reservoir characteristics assumed and calculated in order to obtain fluid properties

Parameter Value Unit Reference

Median reservoir depth 2026 m [S9]
Pressure gradient 10.52 kPa/m [S10]
◦
Temperature gradient 30 C/km [S11]
◦
Surface temperature 15 C Assumption of study
Reservoir pressure (P) 21.3 MPa Calculated
◦
Reservoir temperature (T) 75.8 C Calculated
CO2 density at reservoir P & T 614.08 kg/m3 [S12]
CO2 viscosity at reservoir P& T 47.8 microPa.s [S12]
CO2 fluid phase Supercritical [S12]
Average reservoir oil gravity 37 API [S9]
MWC5+ 183.67 g/mol [S13]
Average MMP 17.6 MPa Calculated
Formation volume factor 1.3 m3 /m3 Assumption of study

3
 (a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure S2: Distributions of reservoir characteristics including depth (m), porosity (%), permeability
(mD) and field area (m2 ) for oil fields with CO2 -EOR activity in the U.S. as well as Prudhoe Bay
hydrocarbon miscible injection field based on Oil & Gas Journal 2014 Survey data.

4
S2.4 CO2 -EOR pattern deployment strategy description

Randomly choose 1 of 3 production profiles for EOR operation in field k

CCS project size (MtCO2 captured/year)

1) Calculate initial pattern number deployed

pmin = [CCS project size]/[Qmaxxfoil]
2) Establish optimum pattern lifetime
3) Open same number of new patterns when optimum lifetime is complete

Does the total number of patterns opened exceed field area?

YES NO

Add 0.01 to foil Is injection rate per

pattern > Qmax
NO YES

Compute NPV for CCS with CO2-EOR project CCS project size +1

CCS project size +1

Select CCS project size with highest NPV

k +1

Figure S3: Flow diagram describing the decision strategy process for CO2 -EOR pattern deploy-
ment within a field k.

S2.5 EOR production profile fit parameters

Table S5: Parameters of logistic and exponential equations of curve fits for production profiles of
oil and CO2 as a percentage of OOIP and HCPV respectively

Oil production fit d a b c RMSE/R-Square

Low 0.0 0.105 9.813 0.4213 0.001414/0.9977
Medium 0.01 0.1774 4.86 0.447 0.002853/0.9954
High 0.09 0.3818 3.449 0.3415
CO2 production fit d’ a’ b’ c’ RMSE/R-Square
Low 0.33 0.3155 0.8515 0.1492 0.01481/0.9751
Medium 0.4 0.6357 0.9292 0.5785 0.009409/0.997
High 0.4792 1.276 0.9086 1.078

5
S3 Cost inflation factors

Table S6: Inflation factors used to convert US$ costs from literature to constant 2016 US$ based
on the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index inflation calculator[S14].

Year of cost reported Inflation factor to 2016 US$

2004 1.270
2010 1.100
2013 1.030
2014 1.017

S4 Compound annual growth rates

A compound annual growth rate (CAGR) is used to compare results of cumulative CCS capacity
deployed by 2050 and cumulative oil production rates to both industries’ growth rate predictions.
The CAGR describes a rate at which an industry would need to grow by every year, if this were at
a steady rate, to achieve a final industry objective size. These rates are calculated against values
of oil production from CO2 -EOR in the US, which was at 156.95 MMbbl/year in 2015 [S15] and
the global value for CO2 captured in 2016 of 27 MtCO2 /year [S16].

S5 Slow and fast industry growth scenarios

In a slow deployment scenario, we assume that the 5-year demonstration period is followed by
a growth to materiality of 20% per year (lower than the exponential growth assumed), followed
by a stagnated growth of 3% per year based on a low carbon technology study by Napp et al.
[S17]. Meanwhile, a much faster industry growth scenario considers that the first 5 years of project
initiation has an upper bound of 2year project investments. In the 10 years that follow, the number
of projects that can be built is limited by a 40% growth rate year on year. The 10 years that follow
see a slower allowable growth rate as momentum is reduced to a 20% growth rate and the 10 years
that follow are limited by a 10% yearly growth rate.

6
S3 Results
S1 Five world scenarios
S1.1 Cumulative CO2 stored and oil produced

100
Cumulative CO 2 Stored in GtCO2/Oil produced in Billion bbl

Cumulative project CO 2 Stored

Cumulative project Oil Produced
90 Base Case
Climate Action
High Oil
80 Forward Learning
Depleting World
70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Year of Investment Assessed

Figure S4: Graph showing cumulative CO2 stored and oil produced as a result of successful
projects obtained in each of the Five World Scenarios

7
S1.2 Average field characteristics of successful projects

0.6
Base Case
Climate Action
High Oil
Forward Learning
0.5 Depleting World

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
)

)
ty

m2
m

)
D
0m
l
oi
si

m
00
ro

00

00
(1

on
Po

0,

(1

illi
s

(1
es

m
lit
th
kn

0
bi
ep

0
ic

ea

(1
th

rm

ea
y
pa

Pe

Ar
et
N

Figure S5: Bar chart showing the total average field characteristics for all successful projects
resulting from each of the five world scenarios from the pool of 1000 fields

8
S2 Heat maps showing sensitivity of CO2 storage and oil production to
2-D variation in CO2 tax, oil price, technological learning and initial
capital cost of capture

CO2 Stored for all projects receiving invesment by 2050 (GtCO 2) CO2 Stored for all projects receiving invesment by 2050 (GtCO 2)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

0.2
55

220

50

55
50
45
40
35
30
0.18

25
20
200
0.16
CO2 tax achieved by 2050 ($/tCO2 )

Technological Learning Rate (LR)

50
55

180 45

40
0.14

15
160

55
45

50
40
25
30
35
20
45 0.12
35
50

140 40
55

30
0.1
35
120 45
40 25
0.08

15
50 30

20

55
45

50
40
25
35

30
35
100 25
45 40 30 0.06
10
80 35 25
30 20 0.04
25 20
20
60 15

15
0.02 30

35
20

40
25

45
10

50

55
10

20
40
0
50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200
Price of Oil ($/bbl) CO2 tax in 2016 ($/tCO2 )

(a) (b)
CO2 Stored for all projects receiving invesment by 2050 (GtCO 2) CO2 Stored for all projects receiving invesment by 2050 (GtCO 2)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

700 700
2015

55
50
45
35
40
30
25
Initial Capital Cost of Capture ($M/MtCO2 captured)

Initial Capital Cost of Capture ($M/MtCO2 captured)

15
10

650 650

20
600 600

550 550 15
15

50

55
40
30

45
35
25
20

20

500 500
20
450 450 25
20
15

400 400
30
50
20
25
30

55
35
40

45

35

350 350
25

300 300
30

250 250
20
25
30

40
35

45

50

55

40

35

25

200 200
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
CO2 tax in 2016 ($/tCO2 ) Price of Oil ($/bbl)

(c) (d)

Figure S6: Heat maps showing contours of CO2 storage achieved for all invested CCS with CO2 -
EOR projects by 2050 as a function of (a) the CO2 tax achieved by 2050 and the price of oil, (b)
the CO2 tax in 2016 and the amount of technological learning assumed, (c) the price of oil and the
initial capital cost of capture assumed per MtCO2 capture capacity in 2016, and (d) the price of
oil and the initial capital cost of capture assumed per MtCO2 capture capacity in 2016.

9
 Oil produced for all project receiving investment by 2050 (Bbbl) Oil produced for all project receiving investment by 2050 (Bbbl)
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100

0.2
40
10

220

30

30

20
50

40
20

50

70
0.18

60
200
60
0.16
CO2 tax achieved by 2050 ($/tCO2 )

Technological Learning Rate (LR)

40
180 50
30

70
0.14
20

60
160

20
30
40
50
70
0.12
70 70

60
40

140 50 80
30

60 0.1
120
70 80 90
0.08
40 50

20
30
40
50
100 60

60
0.06

60
70 80 90
80 50
0.04
60

60
80

0.02
70

30
90

40
50

20
40
40 50
0
50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200
Price of Oil ($/bbl) CO2 tax in 2016 ($/tCO2 )

(a) (b)
Oil produced for all project receiving investment by 2050 (Bbbl) Oil produced for all project receiving investment by 2050 (Bbbl)
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100

700 700
60
50
60

20
40

30

75

80
70
65

85
Initial Capital Cost of Capture ($M/MtCO2 captured)

Initial Capital Cost of Capture ($M/MtCO2 captured)

90
650 650
55

600 600
70

550 550
70

90
60
50
60

40

30

20

80
70

85
75
65

500 500

450 450
70

400 400
90
40
50

30

80

85
60

20

75
70
65

350 350

300 300
70

90

250 250
85
30

20

75
60

65
70

80
50

40

60
80

200 200
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
CO2 tax in 2016 ($/tCO2 ) Price of Oil ($/bbl)

(c) (d)

Figure S7: Heat maps showing contours of oil production for all invested CCS with CO2 -EOR
projects by 2050 as a function of (a) the CO2 tax achieved by 2050 and the price of oil, (b) the
CO2 tax in 2016 and the amount of technological learning assumed, (c) the price of oil and the
initial capital cost of capture assumed per MtCO2 capture capacity in 2016, and (d) the price of
oil and the initial capital cost of capture assumed per MtCO2 capture capacity in 2016.

10
References
[1] Carbon Capture & Sequestration Technologies at MIT. Boundary Dam Fact Sheet: Carbon
Dioxide Capture and Storage Project. https://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/
boundary_dam.html. Accessed on January 18, 2017.

[2] NRG. News Release: NRG Energy, JX Nippon Complete World’s Largest Post-Combustion
Carbon Capture Facility On-Budget and On-Schedule. http://investors.nrg.com/
phoenix.zhtml?c=121544&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=2236424, 2017. Accessed on February
6, 2017.
[3] U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). Recovery Act:
Petra Nova Parish Holdings: W.A. Parish Post-Combustion CO2 Capture and Sequestration
Project. https://www.netl.doe.gov/research/coal/project-information/fe0003311,
2016. Accessed on February 6,2017.
[4] U.S. Office of Fossil Energy. Petra Nova - W.A. Parish Project. https://energy.gov/fe/
petra-nova-wa-parish-project, 2017. Accessed on January 17, 2017.

[5] Carbon Capture & Sequestration Technologies at MIT. Petra Nova W.A. Parish Fact Sheet:
Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage Project. https://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/
projects/wa_parish.html, 2016. Accessed on January 20, 2017.
[6] E. S. Rubin, J. E. Davison, and H. J. Herzog. The cost of CO2 capture and storage. Interna-
tional Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 40:378–400, 2015.
[7] IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage. Technical report, Prepared by
Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Metz, B. and Davidson,
O. and de Coninck, H. C. and Loos, M. and Meyer L. A. (eds.)], Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 442 pp., 2005.

[8] Simpson, J. and McConnel, C. and Matsuda, Y. Economic Assessment of Carbon Capture
and Storage Technologies: 2011 update. Technical report, Worley Parsons and Schlumberger,
2011.
[9] Leena Koottungal. 2014 worldwide EOR survey. Data report, Oil & Gas Journal, 2014.

[10] Schlumberger. Pore-Pressure Gradient Definition. http://www.glossary.oilfield.slb.

com/Terms/p/pore-pressure_gradient.aspx, 2017. Accessed on January 10, 2017.
[11] James P. Meyer. Summary of Carbon Dioxide Enhanced Oil Recovery CO2 EOR Injection
Well Technology. Background report, American Petroleum Institute, 2007.
[12] R. Span and W. Wagner. A New Equation of State for Carbon Dioxide, Covering the Fluid
Region from the Triple Point Temperature to 1100 K at Pressures up to 800 MPa. J. Phys.
Chem. Ref. Data., 25:1509–1596, 1996.
[13] IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Program (IEA GHG). CO2 Storage in Depleted Oilfields: Global
Application Criteria for Carbon Dioxide Enhanced Oil Recovery. 2009/12 December, 2009.

[14] United States Department of Labor: Bureau of Labor Statistics. Databases, Tables & Cal-
culators by Subject: CPI Inflation Calculator. https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_
calculator.htm. Accessed on January 10, 2017.
[15] Godec, Michael. In CO2 -EOR and CCUS: Worldwide Potential and Commercial Drivers,
SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition Special Session: CO2 -EOR as a Pathway
for CCUS, 2014. Amsterdam, Netherlands, October 2014.

[16] Global CCS Institute. Large Scale CCS Facilities: Project Database. https://
www.globalccsinstitute.com/projects/large-scale-ccs-projects, 2017. Accessed on
November 1, 2017.

11
[17] Napp, T. and Bernie, D. and Thomas, R. and Lowe, J. and Hawkes, A. and Ghambir, A. Ex-
ploring the Feasibility of Low-Carbon Scenarios Using Historical Energy Transition Analysis.
Energies, 10, 2017.

12